It's hardly surprising, then, that parts of the legal profession are contemplating industrial action. The mood across the bar is palpable anger at real injustice, and there is a desire to take action before there is nothing left to defend. The intention is to ensure all barristers are consulted as soon as possible about the nature and timing of any strike. The form it takes is important, because a total withdrawal of labour is exactly what the government wants – namely, no lawyers. The legal profession may not have engendered much public sympathy over the years, but the important message behind a strike would be about the predicament of the public they serve, not lawyers themselves.

This has been clearly articulated ever since the draconian measures were announced, even if it has been largely dismissed by monotonous mantras from a hidebound government. One of the postwar visionary pillars of a reconstructed and fairer state has been destroyed by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act.

In February last year I helped the Haldane Society set up a tribunal hearing in the House of Commons. A respected independent panel heard the hard evidence of witnesses who explained how legal aid had saved their lives from devastation. The cases that were heard were not exotic or esoteric claims, but the stuff of everyday life pitted against stronger forces: landlords, employers, local authorities, government departments, violent partners, hospitals and education authorities. The issues are crucial: they relate to disability, benefits claims, discrimination, unfair dismissal, eviction, medical negligence, discrimination, matrimonial disputes, school and college placement, debt, immigration and extradition complexities. This review was not exhaustive: personal injury, criminal injury compensation, prisoner transfer abroad and inquests are yet more. At present some of these are barely covered, if at all, by public funding. From now on, there is an extensive and formidable list of exclusions from legal aid: , importantly for clinical negligence, personal injury, welfare/benefits claims and criminal injury compensation.the act empowers the lord chancellor to remove more categories and allows a newly appointed civil servant, the director of legal aid and casework, to apply a merit and means test to cases. This will have an especially devastating effect on those arrested or in custody, and marks the advent of the telephone gateway, replacing face-to-face consultation with call-centre advisers.

Criminal legal aid has already been severely hit by the threshold of contribution expected from a defendant. Amounts of £6,000-£8,000 are not uncommon, and there are instances of individuals considering pleading guilty simply because it's cheaper. This is particularly disturbing in the wake of the case of Sam Hallam, whose murder conviction was quashed last week after he had spent eight years in prison.

The bill received a drubbing in the Lords in November, with an unprecedented number of defeats. Senior clerics and members of the judiciary have voiced strong opposition. There have been two independent reports, commissioned by the Law Society and the Legal Action Group (LAG). The first demonstrated that the financial case for the bill was flawed and counterproductive, as 60% of the so-called savings will be wiped out by the knock-on social and economic burden. The second revealed overwhelming public support for a properly funded legal advice and representation service.

There has been a predictable toll on frontline legal workers and agencies. Citizens Advice bureaus and neighbourhood law centres have decreased in number, and the appetite for the stresses and strains of underfunded and under-recognised work has diminished. Yet it is these very agencies, euphemistically termed the "not-for-profit sector", that the government audaciously suggests should fill the gap.

I have the privilege to present the annual Legal Aid Awards on 12 June. The process has involved reviewing a large number of nominations. This is not some glossy, red carpet event accompanied by vacuous back-slapping. Each year the amazing work of thousands of dedicated public service lawyers is celebrated, given a small moment of recognition, and – most importantly – shown much-deserved solidarity. Their accounts of endless 14-hour days, in which they provide confidence and hope to thousands of citizens, makes truly inspirational reading.

Some of the nominees have a high profile, but most don't, and among them there is a younger generation stepping up to the bar with enthusiasm and determination. Whether it is the battered wife or the falsely accused parents of a dead child, such victims will not be deserted any more than the continuing campaign to reverse these detrimental proposals before implementation.

This coalition is on a short lease. Their much-vaunted agreement, with its broad themes of fairness, freedom, responsibility and the restoration of individual rights, seems to have evaporated. Like the emperor's new clothes, everyone save the wearers realises their invisibility. This cannot be admitted by the ruling elite, lest, like the emperor, they are thought to be stupid or incompetent. This explains why the objectives of access to justice were omitted from the first draft of the bill.This is a coalition wedded to wealth, a coalition that feigns surprise at the level of tax avoidance, FTSE 100 bosses' remuneration increases and bank staff bonuses, only to then ease the top tax band and continue rejecting a financial transaction tax that could raise £46bn.

The words of the lord chancellor Ken Clarke – that access to justice is a mark of a civilised society – are as threadbare as the emperor's clothes.